| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister confirm, therefore, that what the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said was correct--that, if anyone on the Labour Benches voted against the Bill, he or she would be debarred from further candidature within the Labour party?
Ms Jackson: I am delighted to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is totally incorrect. However, my point in raising the matter was to observe how the mighty are fallen, in that, in a debate that he believes to be important about the restoration of government for London, the right hon. Gentleman is reduced to quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. [Interruption.] There is another example of Conservative Members who are incapable of listening to the answers to the questions they pose.
Sir Norman Fowler: Answer the question.
Ms Jackson: As I began by saying, nothing can be further from the truth. My point, however, is that the right hon. Gentleman has no arguments to present for himself. [Interruption.] He says that I must be joking--but I assure him that, if I tell a joke, I invariably get a laugh; I do not need to come at it from such a sideways angle.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey repeated the points that he made in Committee. We have no argument with the concerns that he expressed. We, too, wish the process to be both fair and, as I said when he spoke to his amendments in Committee, inclusive.
We do not agree with the hon. Gentleman or with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) that what we propose is regional government. We see it as a citywide government. However, we are very much in tune with the hon. Gentleman's perspective that London is infinite in its variety. That point was tellingly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North in an especially interesting contribution.
We see the GLA--the mayor and the assembly, if that is the will of the people of London--as inclusive, outward-reaching and outward-looking, and as wishing to acknowledge London as a city of an infinite variety of peoples and of interests, which is constantly expanding.
That is the way in which London must maintain its primacy as a great capital city. Its greatest treasure is indeed the people of London, who, despite what Conservative Members say, have a wider perspective of what constitutes London than just their own borough or interest.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) made a point that was also made in a different form by the hon. Member for Croydon, South. He argued that there had been no Labour Members present. The hon. Member for Croydon, South said that Labour Members had been forced to take a vow of silence.
However, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar then said that Labour Members had taken us down memory lane, pining for the Greater London council. Where did those mysterious voices come from that the hon. Gentleman heard? Perhaps they were indeed Disraeli, Gladstone and Churchill; they may have been trying to tell him something.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East made the precise point--
Mr. Pickles:
Would the Minister care to comment on a sedentary intervention made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), to the effect that a vow of silence had been taken?
Ms Jackson:
I understood that that remark about the vow of silence was made by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the Member for Croydon, South.
Mr. Pickles:
I heard the hon. Member for Streatham say it.
Ms Jackson:
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar is hearing voices again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East defined in precise detail what we perceive as the way forward for the government of London. We are not concerned with some arcane argument. We want a democratic voice to be restored to London, but we want a new, modern form of local government--it is practical, it will achieve results and, as I have said, it will be inclusive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town gave the clinching argument in the face of attempts by Opposition Members throughout the debate to imply that there is a great schism between the Labour party in this House and the Greater London Labour party over the Government's proposals, when he stated that, out of
65,000 members in London, 1,867 branches, 57 Members of Parliament and a majority of London boroughs, only 16 voices oppose the Government's proposals.
In another informed, intelligent and interesting contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North pointed out that we are attempting to redress the democratic deficiency that has burdened London since the Conservative party took away its democratic rights when in government.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to a vow of silence, or that was my understanding, which he implied had been imposed on myself and my hon. Friends. He reiterated that there were constant calls from the supposedly silent voices for ever greater powers to be given to the Greater London authority. Opposition Members' contributions have been somewhat schizophrenic, but I am grateful for the detailed scrutiny that they afforded the Bill in Committee. I am also grateful for the strong endorsement given to the detail of our proposals at that stage.
Londoners want a strategic authority for this capital. They wanted one in 1986, and they want one now. They know that London needs democratic, citywide leadership, capable of tackling our decaying infrastructure and worsening air quality, taking on the task of regenerating the capital and tackling the growing division between rich and poor--a point made by more than one of my hon. Friends. Londoners know that, without that, we will have a continuation of the ad hoc and the absent, the mantra of the past 11 years--no one in charge, no one to blame.
This Government believe that London should be competing with the best in the world--a leader among world cities--and to do that, it needs leadership of its own. That is why we made our manifesto commitment and published extensive consultation proposals in July, and why so many individuals and organisations responded--hundreds of individuals and organisations, representing tens of thousands of Londoners. That is why people are already discussing who might represent London in elections to the authority some two years hence.
Simply publishing our consultation proposals has revitalised London politics. It has brought forth new optimism and a sense of possibility. People are now discussing how to deal with London's problems, how to meet the challenges we face and how they can work with the new authority and make a real difference. What a change from the pointless confrontation and powerless talking shops that predominated less than a year ago. That is a testament to the enthusiasm of all Londoners for what we are proposing.
Despite the best--a debatable choice of word--efforts of Opposition Members to suggest otherwise, this is neither a complex nor a controversial piece of legislation. We promised a referendum on our proposals for a new Greater London authority, to give the people of London the opportunity to vote yes or no to the creation of a new authority. That is what the Government promised, and what the Bill provides for.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):
I apologise to the hon. Lady and to the
Ms Jackson:
The right hon. Gentleman need never apologise to me. We are not discussing the possibility of the referendum becoming an implicit, intrinsic form of government for the future. He poses a hypothetical question. It is an interesting question, and I wish that I had more time to attempt to answer it.
However, it is particularly clear that we are debating the question that will be posed in a referendum. This is a specific Bill, for a referendum with a specific purpose. However hard Opposition Members have tried, they have significantly failed to present an alternative to the question or to the proposals that we have made in an attempt to restore a democratic voice to London and to Londoners.
Mr. Wilkinson:
I wish that the hon. Lady would deal with this question. Even at this late stage of the discussion, can she give the House some guidelines as to whether the Government will impose limits on expenditure in any campaign for the London referendum, or is the sky the limit as far as bankrolling the election is concerned?
Ms Jackson:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I have misunderstood his question, but we have made it abundantly clear that the cost of the referendum will be £3 million. Is he concerned about another area?
Mr. Wilkinson:
The question is whether the no campaign, if one emerges, or the yes campaign, could spend any amount of money in securing the result they desire--a majority vote.
Ms Jackson:
We have made it abundantly clear that there will be no Government money for either a no or a yes campaign. We have not proposed putting a limit on the funding, but in the light of our concerns about expenditure for other campaigns, the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point, and I see no reason why we should not consider it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |